Clinical Comparison of Conventional and Mobile Endockscope Videocystoscopy Using an Air or Fluid Medium

Objective: To compare conventional videocystoscopy (CVC) with a novel and affordable (approximately $45) mobile cystoscopy system, the Endockscope (ES). We evaluated the ES system using both fluid (Endockscope-Fluid [ES-F]) and air (Endockscope-Air [ES-A]) to fill the bladder in an effort to expand the global range of flexible cystoscopy. Methods: The ES system comprised a portable 1000 lumen LED self-contained cordless light source and a three-dimensional printed adaptor that connects a mobile phone to a flexible fiber-optic cystoscope. Patients undergoing in-office cystoscopic evaluation for either stent removal or bladder cancer surveillance received three examinations: conventional, ES-F, and ES-A cystoscopy. Videos of each examination were recorded and analyzed by expert endoscopists for image quality/resolution, brightness, color quality, sharpness, overall quality, and whether or not they were acceptable for diagnostic purposes. Results: Six of the 10 patients for whom the conventional videos were 100% acceptable for diagnostic purposes were included in our analysis. The conventional videos scored higher on every metric relative to both the ES-F and ES-A videos (p < 0.05). There was no difference between ES-F and ES-A videos on any metric. Fifty-two percent and 44% of the ES-F and ES-A videos, respectively, were considered acceptable for diagnostic purposes (p = 0.384). Conclusions: The ES mobile cystoscopy system may be a reasonable option in settings where electricity, sterile fluid irrigant, or access to CVC equipment is unavailable.